As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life.

You keep repeating this line, but oddly you (and others) have yet to provide any of the so-called 'evidence'. And I got news for you on that score, Jammie - the vast majority of folk with IQs above temperature at which water freezes will reject your claim without it.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Jammy is certainly a reader of UD, but if you look at who he likes there, it is Stephen B, nullasalus, and UprightBiped. That's the Catholic, smug wing of the big tent. Jammy himself is certainly smug and condescending. If he's a sock for any of the regulars at UD, my vote would be StephenB.

All of it makes me feel like puking but the last paragraph especially. No comments are allowed on that article at ENV, as usual. Who's actually the coward? Who's actually fleeing from a fair fight?

What's really bothering klinghoffer is that people are allowed to post challenging, dissenting comments at Amazon and he can't stop them.

Klinkerklanker is being way too modest when he points out that his fellow creationist and scammer, Dougie Axywaxy, has published in a PEER-REVIEWED journal! Yeah, take that, bitches!

And not just Any PEER-REVIEWED Journal, but the esteemed

B-I-O C-O-M-P-L-E-X-I-T-Y

(an unholy owned on-line journal of the Discovery Institute and Biologic Labs (also unholy owned by the Discovery Institute) whose managing director is Dougie Axywaxy and 40% of the articles written, reviewed, and peered at by Dougie Axywaxy, and that peering was really, really reviewed, I swear.) Haven't these guys heard of Facebook?

The remaining 60% of the articles "published" to date were written by members of the Editorial Board, a peeringly fine board of peers that ever peered at a review. Srsly.

As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life.

You keep repeating this line, but oddly you (and others) have yet to provide any of the so-called 'evidence'. And I got news for you on that score, Jammie - the vast majority of folk with IQs above temperature at which water freezes will reject your claim without it.

Fahrenheit or Celsius?

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

All of it makes me feel like puking but the last paragraph especially. No comments are allowed on that article at ENV, as usual. Who's actually the coward? Who's actually fleeing from a fair fight?

What's really bothering klinghoffer is that people are allowed to post challenging, dissenting comments at Amazon and he can't stop them.

Klinkerklanker is being way too modest when he points out that his fellow creationist and scammer, Dougie Axywaxy, has published in a PEER-REVIEWED journal! †Yeah, take that, bitches!

And not just Any PEER-REVIEWED Journal, but the esteemed

B-I-O † C-O-M-P-L-E-X-I-T-Y

(an unholy owned on-line journal of the Discovery Institute and Biologic Labs (also unholy owned by the Discovery Institute) whose managing director is Dougie Axywaxy and 40% of the articles written, reviewed, and peered at by Dougie Axywaxy, and that peering was really, really reviewed, I swear.) †Haven't these guys heard of Facebook?

The remaining 60% of the articles "published" to date were written by members of the Editorial Board, a peeringly fine board of peers that ever peered at a review. †Srsly.

And with all that chummy peer review cycle, BIO-Complexity* only manages to eke out three papers a year!

*What's with the all caps? Does BIO not mean biological? What's hiding behind these letters? Boring Intellectuals Online? Bozos In Overalls? Enquiring minds want to know.

All of it makes me feel like puking but the last paragraph especially. No comments are allowed on that article at ENV, as usual. Who's actually the coward? Who's actually fleeing from a fair fight?

What's really bothering klinghoffer is that people are allowed to post challenging, dissenting comments at Amazon and he can't stop them.

Klinkerklanker is being way too modest when he points out that his fellow creationist and scammer, Dougie Axywaxy, has published in a PEER-REVIEWED journal! †Yeah, take that, bitches!

And not just Any PEER-REVIEWED Journal, but the esteemed

B-I-O † C-O-M-P-L-E-X-I-T-Y

(an unholy owned on-line journal of the Discovery Institute and Biologic Labs (also unholy owned by the Discovery Institute) whose managing director is Dougie Axywaxy and 40% of the articles written, reviewed, and peered at by Dougie Axywaxy, and that peering was really, really reviewed, I swear.) †Haven't these guys heard of Facebook?

The remaining 60% of the articles "published" to date were written by members of the Editorial Board, a peeringly fine board of peers that ever peered at a review. †Srsly.

And with all that chummy peer review cycle, BIO-Complexity* only manages to eke out three papers a year!

*What's with the all caps? Does BIO not mean biological? What's hiding behind these letters? Boring Intellectuals Online? Bozos In Overalls? Enquiring minds want to know.

BIO-Complexity translated: Bible Institute of Complexity.

Hat tip : Biola

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, youíre taking refuge in what we see in the world." †PaV

As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life.

You keep repeating this line, but oddly you (and others) have yet to provide any of the so-called 'evidence'. And I got news for you on that score, Jammie - the vast majority of folk with IQs above temperature at which water freezes will reject your claim without it.

The argument for the semiotic language/information of life. Every time I've seen it used, whether by Upright Biped, kairosfocus, Stephen C. Meyer, or otherwise, it's called Darwinists to grow red in the face and bluster about how they don't understand information, or semiotics, or they'll plead to blind faith in natural forces. "We don't know yet, but we'll get there!"

It is a very powerful argument on par with a scientific law. All know examples arise from an intelligence. Wanna falsify I.D.? Prove nature can do what you need it to. I don't think you can do it, chump. lol.

As of our current understanding, I.D. is the only evidential-based explanation for the origin of life.

You keep repeating this line, but oddly you (and others) have yet to provide any of the so-called 'evidence'. And I got news for you on that score, Jammie - the vast majority of folk with IQs above temperature at which water freezes will reject your claim without it.

The argument for the semiotic language/information of life. Every time I've seen it used, whether by Upright Biped, kairosfocus, Stephen C. Meyer, or otherwise, it's called Darwinists to grow red in the face and bluster about how they don't understand information, or semiotics, or they'll plead to blind faith in natural forces. "We don't know yet, but we'll get there!"

It is a very powerful argument on par with a scientific law. All know examples arise from an intelligence. Wanna falsify I.D.? Prove nature can do what you need it to. I don't think you can do it, chump. lol.

Already done. Look around.

As far as information, I may have already challenged you on that one. If not, it's because you never have responded to any of my other questions.

You define information and EXACTLY how it is measured in terms of living things and I will prove to you, mathematically, that increases in information can occur... however you choose to define information.

However, you won't do it. You won't because you can't. No one in the ID movement has ever defined information and stuck to it.

Their definition of information is almost as variable as their definition of intelligent design itself.

So, tell me how you define information and how it is to be measured and I will provide you mathematical and physical evidence that increases in information occur without intelligent input.

I'm waiting.

BTW: How are you coming on those other questions I asked of you?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

His new version of his departure from the defense team is incompatible with what TMLC submitted in court documents during the case.

His suggestion that a round of debates with lawyers involved would be a suitable rematch fails to convince. Was TMLC incompetent? I certainly couldn't muster much enthusiasm for taking the negative on that, but Dembski's alternative of shining legal splendor didn't do so well in the Kansas Kangaroo Court of 2005, and at the time he was on the privileged side of the aisle.

No, I think an essential feature of the Kitzmiller case was the legal system's ability not merely to subpoena people, but to make them actually respond to the questions that were asked, as the key to the whole thing. That would be missing from the sort of mock court Dembski fantasizes about now.

I've long advocated the notion that in any future court case involving something where Dembski has been involved should have the plaintiffs subpoena Dembski as a hostile witness, specifically so that he can't be removed when the defense figures out just how large an embarrassment his participation would create.

And I don't think Ken Miller needs a backup team to take on Dembski, Behe, and Meyer. I've seen Ken eviscerate the arguments posed by Behe on two separate occasions, and had the privilege to be on a panel with him when Dembski and Nelson were representing the DI. Dembski's notion that he has any hope in such a matchup goes well beyond simple delusion.

Dembski had his chance to shine at Kitzmiller. TMLC had the chance, with Dr. Dr. helping to apply the original Vice, later changed to Vise (spelling has never been a strength of Dembski, well, along with all intellectual disciplines) to the Darwinidiots, alas, fail.

Dembski sat in on Barbara Forrest's deposition and by all accounts nearly passed out and threw up. Barbara had his ass nailed to the wall and he knew it. Dembski ran back to the Motel 6, packed his bags and didn't even leave the light on. There was this great whooshing sound as Dr. Dr. beat cheeks out of town.

Of course, little peckerwood, you were only in the 5th grade at that time so how would you know anything about shinola, hmmm?

Consider this, "Dr." Peckerwood, big bad "intelligent design" creationism heavyweight double-doctor Dembski, adult and all that, is still going whaaaaaa-whaaaaaa about a trial he didn't even participate in that happened SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO! But, who knows, maybe he has some microscopic Christian-ish trace of a conscience that nags him about what a lying coward he is. By the way, I wonder if he drank that bottle of scotch? That's probably nagging him, too.

Yes, it was Dembski who proposed the "Vise Strategy" with the accompanying photo of a Darwin stuffed toy with its head being compressed in a vise. This was not long after PT started posting photos of Prof. Steve Steve as its mascot. The creepy-factor of Dembski's foray into what he now asserts himself as an attempt at humor was immense (perhaps getting into the range of large numbers like the Dmb).

I already said my piece on the fabulous disappearing witnesses of the defense at the Kitzmiller trial.

Dembski had his chance to shine at Kitzmiller. †TMLC had the chance, with Dr. Dr. helping to apply the original Vice, later changed to Vise (spelling has never been a strength of Dembski, well, along with all intellectual disciplines) to the Darwinidiots, alas, fail.

Dembski sat in on Barbara Forrest's deposition and by all accounts nearly passed out and threw up. †Barbara had his ass nailed to the wall and he knew it. †Dembski ran back to the Motel 6, packed his bags and didn't even leave the light on. †There was this great whooshing sound as Dr. Dr. beat cheeks out of town.

Of course, little peckerwood, you were only in the 5th grade at that time so how would you know anything about shinola, hmmm?

Consider this, "Dr." Peckerwood, big bad "intelligent design" creationism heavyweight double-doctor Dembski, adult and all that, is still going whaaaaaa-whaaaaaa about a trial he didn't even participate in that happened SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO! †But, who knows, maybe he has some microscopic Christian-ish trace of a conscience that nags him about what a lying coward he is. †By the way, I wonder if he drank that bottle of scotch? †That's probably nagging him, too.

I don't know, one can buy rather a large number of bottles of good single-malt scotch with over $20,000 in fees extracted out of a group of people who fired you. Choosing between narratives of selfless heroism (protecting the interests of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics) and persecution (evil Darwinists hounded me or incompetent lawyers fired me!) might become a bit blurred, let alone the question of whether to deprive folks putatively on your own side of that much working capital.

Hmmm, somebody ought to forward Dembski's article to Richard Thompson of TMLC to see whether he agrees with Dembski's assessment of his legal acumen. Who knows, maybe Thompson could figure out a way ("defamation" might be a relevant keyword) to get back his $20,000+.

It is a very powerful argument on par with a scientific law. All know examples arise from an intelligence.

As far as I know, "all known examples" of "semiotic language/information" come from human intelligence, unless you want to count apes that have been taught to use sign language (i.e., Ko-Ko). Therefore, by your own line of reasoning, the "semiotic language/information" which occurs in living bodies must have originally been created by a human (or possibly primate) Intelligent Designer.

He may be the world's worst Liar for Darwin. I believe his dishonesty trumps that of Dawkins, Matzke, and even you illiterate, pockmarked basement-dwellers.

Kudos to William Dembski for calling this little bitch out on his bullshit. I eagerly await the day where Dembski slaps the yellow off of his teeth for all of his lies.

Jammy's rhetoric has definitely slipped several notches downhill towards JoeG quality poop-throwing. I guess it is the stress of ot answering all those questions. Perhaps his UD heroes will come here and help him out.

Dembski had his chance to shine at Kitzmiller. †TMLC had the chance, with Dr. Dr. helping to apply the original Vice, later changed to Vise (spelling has never been a strength of Dembski, well, along with all intellectual disciplines) to the Darwinidiots, alas, fail.

Dembski sat in on Barbara Forrest's deposition and by all accounts nearly passed out and threw up. †Barbara had his ass nailed to the wall and he knew it. †Dembski ran back to the Motel 6, packed his bags and didn't even leave the light on. †There was this great whooshing sound as Dr. Dr. beat cheeks out of town.

Of course, little peckerwood, you were only in the 5th grade at that time so how would you know anything about shinola, hmmm?

Consider this, "Dr." Peckerwood, big bad "intelligent design" creationism heavyweight double-doctor Dembski, adult and all that, is still going whaaaaaa-whaaaaaa about a trial he didn't even participate in that happened SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO! †But, who knows, maybe he has some microscopic Christian-ish trace of a conscience that nags him about what a lying coward he is. †By the way, I wonder if he drank that bottle of scotch? †That's probably nagging him, too.

I don't know, one can buy rather a large number of bottles of good single-malt scotch with over $20,000 in fees extracted out of a group of people who fired you. Choosing between narratives of selfless heroism (protecting the interests of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics) and persecution (evil Darwinists hounded me or incompetent lawyers fired me!) might become a bit blurred, let alone the question of whether to deprive folks putatively on your own side of that much working capital.

Hmmm, somebody ought to forward Dembski's article to Richard Thompson of TMLC to see whether he agrees with Dembski's assessment of his legal acumen. Who knows, maybe Thompson could figure out a way ("defamation" might be a relevant keyword) to get back his $20,000+.

Dembski had his chance to shine at Kitzmiller. †TMLC had the chance, with Dr. Dr. helping to apply the original Vice, later changed to Vise (spelling has never been a strength of Dembski, well, along with all intellectual disciplines) to the Darwinidiots, alas, fail.

Dembski sat in on Barbara Forrest's deposition and by all accounts nearly passed out and threw up. †Barbara had his ass nailed to the wall and he knew it. †Dembski ran back to the Motel 6, packed his bags and didn't even leave the light on. †There was this great whooshing sound as Dr. Dr. beat cheeks out of town.

Of course, little peckerwood, you were only in the 5th grade at that time so how would you know anything about shinola, hmmm?

Consider this, "Dr." Peckerwood, big bad "intelligent design" creationism heavyweight double-doctor Dembski, adult and all that, is still going whaaaaaa-whaaaaaa about a trial he didn't even participate in that happened SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO! †But, who knows, maybe he has some microscopic Christian-ish trace of a conscience that nags him about what a lying coward he is. †By the way, I wonder if he drank that bottle of scotch? †That's probably nagging him, too.

I don't know, one can buy rather a large number of bottles of good single-malt scotch with over $20,000 in fees extracted out of a group of people who fired you. Choosing between narratives of selfless heroism (protecting the interests of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics) and persecution (evil Darwinists hounded me or incompetent lawyers fired me!) might become a bit blurred, let alone the question of whether to deprive folks putatively on your own side of that much working capital.

Hmmm, somebody ought to forward Dembski's article to Richard Thompson of TMLC to see whether he agrees with Dembski's assessment of his legal acumen. Who knows, maybe Thompson could figure out a way ("defamation" might be a relevant keyword) to get back his $20,000+.

I think Dembski's given up hope for any future victories, and is focused on rewriting history instead.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Dembski had his chance to shine at Kitzmiller. †TMLC had the chance, with Dr. Dr. helping to apply the original Vice, later changed to Vise (spelling has never been a strength of Dembski, well, along with all intellectual disciplines) to the Darwinidiots, alas, fail.

Dembski sat in on Barbara Forrest's deposition and by all accounts nearly passed out and threw up. †Barbara had his ass nailed to the wall and he knew it. †Dembski ran back to the Motel 6, packed his bags and didn't even leave the light on. †There was this great whooshing sound as Dr. Dr. beat cheeks out of town.

Of course, little peckerwood, you were only in the 5th grade at that time so how would you know anything about shinola, hmmm?

Consider this, "Dr." Peckerwood, big bad "intelligent design" creationism heavyweight double-doctor Dembski, adult and all that, is still going whaaaaaa-whaaaaaa about a trial he didn't even participate in that happened SEVEN FREAKING YEARS AGO! †But, who knows, maybe he has some microscopic Christian-ish trace of a conscience that nags him about what a lying coward he is. †By the way, I wonder if he drank that bottle of scotch? †That's probably nagging him, too.

I don't know, one can buy rather a large number of bottles of good single-malt scotch with over $20,000 in fees extracted out of a group of people who fired you. Choosing between narratives of selfless heroism (protecting the interests of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics) and persecution (evil Darwinists hounded me or incompetent lawyers fired me!) might become a bit blurred, let alone the question of whether to deprive folks putatively on your own side of that much working capital.

Hmmm, somebody ought to forward Dembski's article to Richard Thompson of TMLC to see whether he agrees with Dembski's assessment of his legal acumen. Who knows, maybe Thompson could figure out a way ("defamation" might be a relevant keyword) to get back his $20,000+.

I think Dembski's given up hope for any future victories, and is focused on rewriting history instead.

I don't think he is an idiot, there must be *more* of some sort to that character!

Quote

It is a very powerful argument on par with a scientific law. All know examples arise from an intelligence. Wanna falsify I.D.? Prove nature can do what you need it to. I don't think you can do it, chump. lol.

It doesn't get much better. Currently 2.169 are currently following the DI on twitter while 4.094 are reading NCSE's tweets. And how desperate does one have be to state:

Quote

Heck, you could go through our recommended booklist and give appropriate ID books to friends for Christmas, Hanukkah, birthdays, or other holidays.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."